Thank you. Most frameworks for equal pay for work of equal value and pay equity also want to ensure that a variety of systems that exist between employers and employees are put into place for good reason and are not considered to be discriminatory. This list is similar to what you would find within the Canadian Human Rights Act in the equal wages guidelines. The purpose is that most employers have a seniority system where, as employees become more experienced in the work that they do, they progress from one step to another. It may be in an organization that at a particular period of time you may have more men in an organization that are, for example, at step five and more women at step three and the goal is to ensure that in a seniority system such as that, where the progression and the idea of having a seniority system where over time you get more experience and are paid more, the system is available to everybody and it's not discriminatory in the way that it works, that it will not be considered discriminatory that in the course of that seniority system, men and women receive different compensation.

Similarly, if you look at something like compensation based on regional differences and cost of living, it's also common for employers to look at issues like cost of living and provide additional compensation, for example, in some of our remote communities where the cost of living is higher. Again, if it happens that there are more men living in a higher cost community and more women living in a lower cost community, that the differences between their wages, because they reflect differences, a cost of living would not be discriminatory. These are common in terms of the defences or different reasons for differences between compensation for men and women and it is also important to understand that when a complaint is made, these factors may still be reviewed but these are the most common reasons that you wouldn't find a system to be discriminatory. Thank you.

There is a proposed amendment to this particular section that will change the language slightly to limit the exemptions that are available to the list that is here. The current language references "such as" and provides these as examples only.

The proposed amendment is to change that so that these are the only defences available in the case of a human rights and equal pay for work of equal value complaint.

It's also important to understand that the equal pay for work of equal value provisions are aimed at discrimination based on sex and right now, the protection does not go any further than that. It is important to remember that equal pay for work of equal value is based on systemic discrimination between groups and the importance of having a large enough group in order to be able to identify systemic discrimination. Thank you.

Within the human rights framework, it's traditional to look at the concept of establishment. You often look at bargaining units. You look at different groups of employees who have different terms and conditions of employment. It is not a requirement that every bargaining unit and every establishment have to have the same terms and conditions of employment. It's important to realize that different establishments may exist. In other legislation that's applied to a larger group of employers, the definition is usually generic. In our case, because it is applied to a single employer only, we are able to identify specifically what the three establishments are. These are groups of individuals who have very different terms and conditions of employment, different collective agreements and, as a result, are appropriately different establishments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reference to removal for cause and incapacity is a fairly standard provision. You will see it in respect of the other commissioners that would be appointed by the Legislative Assembly. Removed for cause means there has to be some misconduct on the part of the person that would lead a court to determine that there has been cause for the Legislative Assembly to have removed that person from office. Incapacity would be some kind of impairment that prevents the equal pay commissioner from carrying out his or her functions in an effective manner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I probably didn't give a very good explanation of that point. What I meant to say was that, in assessing whether or not a body has cause to dismiss an equal pay commissioner, they would have to consider whether or not the misconduct of the equal pay commissioner was such that it would give a court cause to say that there was, in fact, justification for removing that officer from the position. So they would have to consider the nature of the misconduct and that it was of such a nature as to warrant the removal of the officer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Agreed.

---Agreed